Mandatory physician reporting of drivers with cardiac disease: ethical and practical considerations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many jurisdictions in Canada have enacted legislation that requires physicians to report their patients to the Ministry of Transport if they have a medical condition that may put them at increased risk to operate a motor vehicle. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society has published guidelines that are designed to assist physicians and policy-makers in their decision-making. Legislation is designed to protect society, and the guidelines are designed to fulfill that mandate. However, in the present paper, important issues that have not been addressed to date are discussed. What is the efficacy of mandatory reporting legislation? What are the harms done to patients who are restricted from driving? What are the costs of the mandatory reporting system? How can the scientific/technical assessment of risk be reconciled with the social/ethical view of risk assessment? Until these issues are addressed, important questions about the ethics, efficacy and cost of mandatory physician reporting will remain unanswered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.168 | 0.401 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".